Murder, I kind of get. You kill them, they're gone, you no longer have to deal with that...

I'm fine with cruel punishments so long as there is undeniable evidence of guilt and a bad enough crime that deserves said punishment.

Although that's pretty subjective.

But using something specifically not to kill, but to maim and cause permanent suffering for the rest of the person's life...

Yeah, no, that's where my thoughts start going to 'eye for an eye'.

Unfortunately, that won't help anything, because the values at play in the mind of someone who would do that justify it in their own heads

meaning that form of justice would seem like another wrong to right. Therefore, a form of justice with more of a moral high-ground is needed...

I guess the issue is the irreversability of said punishments.

Lest you justify their judgements.

It's irreversible to jail someone for 5 years, only to find them innocent and release them.

I mean, it's more reversible than a dip in an acid vat, or hacking off limbs

you can still release them

but it's still a wrong done to them.

That's why undeniable is important.

'undeniable' is an unnaturally high standard.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard we usually work with at trial level.

There are cases where it's pretty easy to get undeniable evidence.

Like a mass stabbing attack or truck attack.

It still leaves exceptions to unreasonable circumstances for misapplication of the law.

And that standard would be applied to the cruel punishments.

The point remains, though

Acid Attacks are generally used as a punishment for some crime perceived by the attacker, right?

Usually a crime against decency set forth by Sharia law?

Which is not legally defined and vigilante "justice" if you could even call it that.

Or at least not by western standards.

The point is, by using their own forms of punishment, when the punishment is the problem

Don't you ultimately validate their methods?

If a citizen detains someone who's committed a crime, and it's proven

The citizen isn't called in to question

In their own countries it could be considered valid even though I'd disagree with it.

but if the person detained hadn't done anything, or is found innocent

the citizen can actually face 'kidnapping'.

I'm not talking about foreign nations in this particular matter, either. I'm talking Western nations upholding cultural standards that keep us that way.

Justice as it stems from English Commonlaw, if you will.

I'm saying it's rather tempting when I hear of someone being a victim of an acid attack, to wish the same upon the attacker

But ultimately, that's the wrong course, even if we didn't have laws forbidding it.

(I really need to sleep...)

(I'll respond to stuff later on...)

Gnight

should we set our morale base by the principles and values that the science of ethics teaches?

or just continue letting the masses wing it with social media?